Espen Myrland wrote:
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What is an "illegal monopoly"?
> The opposite of a "legal monopoly". For example, in Norway we have
> "Vinmonopolet", a monopoly which are the only one allowed to sell
> wine and spirits to the public.
Seriously, I have no idea what you he means by "illegal monopoly". I
understand that one can be granted a monopoly by law, however not being
granted a monopoly by law does not make the monopoly illegal. Is he claiming
the monopoly itself violated some law?
For example, I know what "illegal monopoly maintenance" is. It's
illegally maintaining a monopoly. But it's not maintaining an illegal
monopoly. As the appeals court put it, "the monopoly in this case was not
found to have been illegally acquired, but only to have been illegally
maintained." Both the district and appellate courts characterized
Microsoft's monopoly as "lawfully-acquired".
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no court
ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to characterize
the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous.
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
